( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 27-6-2000 (Annexure P-l) of the respondent No. 4 and order dated 17-5-2000 (Annexure P-2) of the respondent No. 1 by virtue of which the petitioner has been retired from 17-5-2000.

( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Training Instructor. That post was later on redesignated as Sports Officer. The date of birth of the petitioner is 15-3-1939. He attained the age of 60 years on 15-3-1999. He continued to work as Sports Officer. It is also not disputed that by M. P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1998 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) the age of retirement of teacher has been raised to 62 years. In this Act, definition of teacher has been given in the Explanation to Section 2 (1-a ). That reads :

"for the purpose of this sub-rule "teacher" means a Government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in Government educational institution including technical or medical educational institutions, in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appointment and shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned School/collegiate/ Technical/medical education service".

( 3. ) THE petitioners case is that he is also a teacher within the meaning of definition of "teacher" given above. According to him he is teaching skills of various games and therefore, he is included within the definition of teacher. ( 4. ) THE respondent No. 4 has basically relied upon the order of the Government referred above and therefore, the petitioner has been retired from 17-5-2000 as he continued to work as Sports Officer upto that date. The respondent No. 1 has also taken shelter under the order dated 29-5-2001

(Annexure R-l ). Learned Counsel for both the sides were heard. As mentioned above teacher has been defined in the Explanation to Section 2 (1-a) of the Act. According to the Explanation, the definition of "teacher" is very wide. It means "government Teacher" by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching. Therefore, simply because the petitioner has been subsequently designated as Sports Officer instead of Physical Training Instructor he would not go out of the definition of teacher.

( 5. ) THE Supreme Court has held in P. S. Ramamohana Rao v. A. P. Agricultural University, AIR 1997 SC 3433, that

"a Physical Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges games and sports for the students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-class and inter-college tournaments and accompanies the students team when they go for the inter-University tournaments. For that purpose it is one of his important duties to guide them about the rules of the various games and sports. It is well known that different games and sports have different rules and practices and unless the students are guided about the said rules and practices they will not be able to play the games and participate in the sports in a proper manner. Further, it is inherent in the duties of a Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills and techniques of these games and sports. There are large number of indoor and outdoor games in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has to teach them several skills and the techniques of these games apart from the rules applicable to these games. It may be that the Physical Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evenings after the regular classes are over. It may also be that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical and practical classes for the students so far as physical ed